Reexamining the Secret Origins of the Riace Bronzes

52 years after the bronzes were pulled from the sea, however, the Syracuse Public Prosecutor's Office in Sicily officially opened an investigation to clarify the true origins of where and when the statues were found. The impetus for doing so comes from persistent debates surrounding the bronzes' manufacturing and display locations. 

Even if archaeologists and historians generally agree on the statues dating to the 5th century BCE, that they were made in Argo, Greece, and that the two figures were originally holding weaponry, too many questions still exist based on where they were found and what should have been found with them.

One theory about the statues’ origin, and the one most closely tied to the new investigations, is that they were cast in multiple pieces in Greece in the 5th century BCE and taken to Syracuse in Sicily where they were assembled and displayed. The statues were then looted by the Romans during the siege of Syracuse in 213-212 BCE with the intent of taking them to Rome. However, the ship carrying the bronzes sank near Brucoli, Sicily. 

This theory was already proposed in the 1970s by R. Ross Holloway, an archaeologist at Brown University, and supported further by Anna Marguerite McCann, the first American woman underwater archaeologist. Holloway in particular took the theory further, concluding that the bronzes were found at Riace because of looting activity in modernity, not because they originated from the area. Holloway's hypothesis is supported by multiple arguments.

In fact, the location where they were located seems to be somewhat unusual. Mariottini found them approximately 300 meters from the shore, and at a depth of eight meters, partially hidden in the sandy seabed in an area that showed no archaeological evidence of a shipwreck related to the bronzes. Even after decades of research, and with the assistance of modern technology, no such evidence of a wreck has yet been found. 

More recently, the “Syracusan hypothesis” has been enriched with additional scenarios, thanks to new studies conducted by academics at the University of Catania and the University of Ferrara in collaboration with Dr. Anselmo Madeddu, a medical doctor and amateur historian, and a TV special produced by the Italian news program “TG1.” 

The latter featured witnesses who claimed the bronzes were found and illegally recovered in Brucoli, Sicily by divers working for Jacques Cousteau– without his knowledge. According to these witnesses, there was originally a group of five statues with weapons and helmets and two bronze lions as well. They argued that the looted statues would have been brought to Riace Marina by ship, deposited into the water in order to be recovered a second time for later sales. The television special also showed a photo depicting one of the statues being taken by two people from Brucoli at that time.

In addition to that, TG1 also claimed to have found a note from Robert Hecht Jr.’s notebook, an art dealer involved in the million-dollar illegal sale of the Eufronius Crater, among other things, about a masterpiece of Greek art stolen in Italy, exported and sold illegally to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Among Hecht's notes, he mentions a “group of bronzes signed by Pitagora di Reggio, V sec. a.C.”, a Greek sculptor considered to be one of the possible creators of the statues.

The news program and new evidence immediately caused a stir and further fueled the fierce debate that has been going on for decades, reigniting the issues concerning where the statues were originally exhibited and how they ended up on the seabed of Riace Marina.

First, there is still the need to verify if the new information was true or not. This would help justify the opening of the investigation by the Syracuse Public Prosecutor, since there has been no concrete evidence, and some of the witnesses have been seen as not credible. Afterall, the photograph of the statues shown by TG1 has since been proven to be photoshopped. 

There are numerous other facts that require verification, including the note found between the lines of Hecht's notebook, as there were– and are– certainly not many Greek bronze originals in circulation, and what he wrote about could very well have been the statues in question.

A veil of mystery also lingers on the events that took place during the first days of the statues’ discovery. Mariottini's report at the time referred to a group of statues, only two of which emerged from the seabed, and one that had a shield. His statements seem to suggest that he saw more than two statues. 

In addition to that, during those five days between the discovery and the actual recovery of the bronzes, additional reports and declarations were filed to the authorities from other locals. In one of them, it seems that tourists were seen trying to recover one of the statues with a boat. In another, a person claims that two divers were transporting a shield and a broken spear along the seashore not far from the location of the discovery. 

Lastly, there is also the fact that the research conducted by experts from the aforementioned universities seem to point to Syracuse as the original display location of the statues.This theory is still highly debated, however, and has divided the academic community. In particular, Dr. Anselmo Madeddu has been strongly criticized by some academics, because he does not hold a degree in archaeology– a rather hollow critique, as the possession of academic titles does not always preclude a good knowledge of events and history.

The Syracusan hypothesis is only one among many of the current theories surrounding the Riace Bronzes, and it very well may not be the right one. It does, however, surely keep the debate alive, fueling it with new points of view and scientific data.

Since their discovery, the Riace Bronzes have stimulated the creation and experimentation of new restoration techniques, their perfect bodies have expanded knowledge in the field of ancient bronze art, and their delicate features have amazed and moved art lovers and passionate laymen of history and culture. They will surely keep surprising us.

But, perhaps, never before has the desire for them to come to life, even for a moment, and whisper their secrets to us been so longed for.